Let’s talk about the filibuster.
On the surface, it may seem less enthralling than other hot-button political topics, but the debate over whether to keep the filibuster in the U.S. Senate continues to rage, and for good reason. The filibuster has a major impact on how/which legislation is passed.
First, I believe a discussion of the history of the filibuster is in order. Before 1806, a simple majority (greater than 50%) in the Senate was required to end debate on a bill and proceed to a vote on whether to pass the bill. This is called a cloture motion. A simple majority was, and still is, required to pass a bill. In 1806, Vice President Aaron Burr convinced the body that unlimited debate should be permitted before voting on a bill, and the procedure was changed accordingly. This was the beginning of the filibuster.
This change did not impede much legislation until 1917, in the midst of WWI. President Wilson approached the body to ask for authorization of broad military action. To block the proposal, the Senate debated until the session ended, which angered Wilson greatly. Wilson proposed that the cloture motion be reinstated. As a compromise, cloture was reinstated, but could only succeed with the approval of 2/3 of the body (a supermajority).
The filibuster was used more often during the 1950s, when Civil Rights legislation was being considered. Majority Leader Mike Mansfield did not enjoy the long, tiresome debate, so he changed the rules. The Senate could now skip debate and immediately enact a cloture motion to see whether a supermajority existed. This allowed for a group of Senators to block a bill by simply threatening to filibuster–they no longer had to get up and talk for hours on end.
In the 1970s, as the filibuster was used more and more often, the Senate changed the threshold for cloture. Now, just 60 votes were needed to proceed to a vote on the bill. This remains the rule today, aside from certain exceptions (the filibuster can no longer be used in confirmation hearings).
The filibuster is a tactic heavily utilized by the minority party in the Senate to block bills proposed by the other side of the aisle. Because the body today is split 50/50 into diametrically opposed camps, it is easy to defeat a bill with a filibuster. Polarization and ideological rigidity, in combination with this popular political maneuver, have made it near impossible for controversial legislation to pass.
This is why Democrats in 2022 are currently pushing to get rid of the filibuster, especially in the wake of the failure of the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (which we will discuss next week).
So, should it go?
I believe the filibuster should stay. Democratic Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin agree with me. These are the Senators who casted crucial votes against the filibuster’s elimination, which directly led to the failure of the two aforementioned bills. Without the filibuster, if one party–be that Republican or Democrat–holds a simple majority in Congress and holds the Presidency, it can pass whatever legislation it wants with virtually no check from the minority party. The filibuster acts as that check. Protecting the rights of the minority party is a long-standing principle in the American tradition of governance.
Simply put, if we were to eliminate the filibuster, it would be easier for good legislation to pass…but it would also be easier for bad legislation to pass. If 60 Senators can’t agree on the bill, then perhaps it is not the most beneficial to the welfare of the people.